State & local governments are independant under our constitutional principles, not sovereign. They are bound to honor our individual rights, and to check & balance excessive federal powers. They have failed. ... Just as it is true that our central federal government is honor bound to to check & balance excessive state/local powers. They have failed. -tpaine 28
The concept of an 'all powerful state', one that can ignore our constitutions restrictions, has always been a product of the states rights movement in america. The socialistic politics of the early 1900's grew from that seed, -- and flowered in Roosevelts big government 'new deal'; which was bought to power by a coalition between leftist labor & states rightist political interests. -tpaine 59
What constitutional restrictions have the states righters ignored? -rb-
Lots, - but their support for the CA prohibitions on 'assault weapons' gets me the most. There are dozens of self described conservatives on FR who ~insist~ that CA has a 'right' to so 'regulate' guns. -- IE, -- that our BOR's do not apply to a state. Incredible. - In effect they are constitutional scofflaws, and are proud of it... -tpaine 135
You responded to 59 thusly:
Meditate on that statement until you figure out how totally wrongside-out it is, then get back to us. -LG 93
Then you tried to gang up on him behind his back
Troll alert PING.........The history-washing machine is on spin cycle again.... -LG 103
Then you make this comment as it regards 59
This is the objectionable, antihistorical statement. -LG 267
And finish up by writing a windy states rights synopsis in which you bring up Jim Crow laws, which support rather than rebut his statements.
Now, to quote a well known Freeper on this thread
-- he brought the goods. You can't just sweep it under the rug like that. Refute, or stipulate to what he's saying. Slothful induction will get you nowhere on this board.
Lots, - but their support for the CA prohibitions on 'assault weapons' gets me the most. There are dozens of self described conservatives on FR who ~insist~ that CA has a 'right' to so 'regulate' guns.
Seems as though you're lumping a large body of diverse political opinion and philosophy under the name of states' rights-ers.
My understanding of the phrase all powerful state in tpaine's original statement was a reference to the federal government. That is almost always the context in which that phrase is used. The organizational structure of our republic prevents it's use in reference to state government, as those opposed could just vote with their feet (oddly, this was tried once at the federal level - and as a result we all find ourselves here today)!
I was taken aback when later it was explained that all powerful state was not in reference to federal power. The notion of an all powerful government at the state level is not reasonable, as certain powers are delegated away from the states by our federal constitution.
-- IE, -- that our BOR's do not apply to a state. Incredible. - In effect they are constitutional scofflaws, and are proud of it... -tpaine 135
States' rights advocates are not alone in their opinion that the BOR applies limits only to federal power. There are many who believe this, and they are not totally unjustified - that is to say, I have not seen a convincing argument that the opposite is true. The BOR is, after all, amending a document ordained and established for the United States of America.
Much additional contrary evidence exists. To continue your example, 46 states (I believe that # is correct still) have explicit protection of the RKBA in their own state constititions. It is evident that such a clause could have been included in the original 13, had they been established and ratified prior to the appendage of the BOR to the constitution, but how to explain the others when there is an explicit constitutional clause forbidding them to act?